In this new age of the NFL where a player's behavior is looked upon so closely, Curtis Martin's status as a complete class act will help him in the voting.
Faulk is a no-brainer as a 1st ballot Hall of Famer for the following reasons: 12,279 rushing yards 100 rushing TD's 767 receptions 36 receiving TD's 1st or 2nd in yards from scrimmage 4 years running from 1998-2001 Only player in NFL history to go over 2,000 yards from scrimmage in 4 consecutive seasons. Holds all-time record for yards from scrimmage in a single season with 2,429 One of two players (Roger Craig) to both rush for and receive for 1,000 yds in same season Led his team in receptions and rushing yds in the same season 5 times in his career, nobody else has lead more than 3 times (Roger Craig, LT.) Held record for most TD's in a season at 26, since broken 7 Time Pro Bowl Selection (Barry Sanders 10, Jim Brown 9, Walter Payton 9, Francos Harris 9, Emmitt Smith 8, makes Faulk's 7 the 6th highest total in history, and no he's not tied with anybody.) 3 Time MVP (1999, 2001 AP MVP, 2000 PFWA MVP) 3 Time AP Offensive Player of the Year (1999-2001) AP Offensive Rookie of The Year Marshall Faulk was the dominant offensive player in football from 1998 to 2001. He was a pretty good player for a bunch of years on each side of that too and he's a shoo-in as a first ballot Hall of Famer.
Here are the career comparisons. Looks to me like it would be Faulk and Martin if only two could get in. Any thoughts? G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD Bettis 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 Faulk 176 | 2836 12279 4.3 100 | 767 6875 9.0 36 Martin 168 | 3518 14101 4.0 90 | 484 3329 6.9 10
As NYJUNC has pointed out Bettis is eligible the year before Faulk and Martin. On the merits it would be a tough call between the two of them. If they both were similar backs it would be an easy call in Martin's favor. In fact they are somewhat dissimilar in terms of their play style. Bettis is widely seen as the best big bruising back since Earl Campbell, with possible apologies to John Riggins in there somewhere. His job for the Steelers was to run straight ahead and pound the line on virtually every play. There was no finesse or wiggle in his game and he came the closest to being a fullback of any of the feature backs of his day. Martin is acknowledged to be one of the best finesse backs of his day with the ability to make people fall down trying to tackle him in the open field. While not a weak runner inside he really was more of a misdirection back than you will normally see out of a mid-sized tailback. When you compare the teams that they both played on it's pretty clear that the Steelers were a better over all team than the Patriots and Jets teams that Martin starred for. The offensive lines were very similar though and the QB's not all that dissimilar in value either. Bettis got Neal O'Donoghue, Kordell Stewart, Tommy Maddox and then Ben Roethlisberger. Martin got Drew Bledsoe, Vinny Testaverde and then Chad Pennington. Neither of them had a Hall of Fame QB playing with them. I think it's not hard to pick Bettis over Martin depending on your prejudices as to what makes for an effective tailback. If you like the bruiser who takes it to the house you pick Bettis and if you like the finesse guy you take Martin. I hope Bettis gets in on his first ballot. I really don't want the voters sitting there trying to figure out whether stiffing Bettis twice is worse than stiffing Martin once.
OK...I'll be a dissenting vote here. Curtis Martin was a great, great Jet, but he was never considered one of the best in the league (in fact he was never the best RB in football in any given year). He compiled fantastic stats, embodied professionalism, played hard, and was a winner (although never won a SB). Does he deserve to get in? Yes. Should he be a first-ballot inductee? Absolutely not. Save that honor for players like Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, John Elway, Lawrence Taylor, etc. He is not even close to that category. Even Namath wasn't first ballot. There are plenty of people who don't even think he belongs in at all...first ballot guys are no-brainers to everyone. Sorry, but as much as I love Curtis, first ballot is an honor he neither deserves nor will get. Flame away.
Faulk versus Martin That's some interesting stats and posts on Faulk. He had a prolific career. Now I will say he played on a very good offensive team with the Rams - and was given more support than CM who was the Go-to guys for the Jets. Seeing the stats, I would have to say both deserve to go in 1st ballot.
Take away how classy Curtis is, how much we like him personally, how tough he was on the football field. Or how much respect he has in the media, which shouldn't account for much but always factors into voting. That's all window dressing that helps the cause, but doesn't seal the deal. Here's all you need to know on why he's a 1st-ballot HOFer: He is the # 4 all-time rusher in the NFL. His stats weren't padded by four or five years of sub 700 yard seasons. He wasn't a Fantasy Football icon like Faulk, but his stats don't lie. I would mortgage my retirement on his making it in the 1st ballot.
Nice post, I totally agree. Most people on t his board are bias. As a jet fan I would rather have Joe Klecko in than Martin.
Another to consider. Will Shields, 12x Pro Bowler, retired today. So assuming Martin retires, he has Shields and Faulk who will both become eligible the same time he does. His chances of going on his first try is lower than it would be in most situations
Martin will be eligible for induction one year before Shields. Martin will never play again. It doesn't matter when he officially retires. The PFHOF is only concerned with when he last played. Martin and Faulk will be eligible for induction in 2011, Shields in 2012.
Oh okay. I always knew the rule was worded 'from the last game he played' but I guess I always just took that as when he retires. So does everyone here think Shields will make it in his first year of eligibility?
you mean besides 2004 right? #4 All time in rushing, very durable, did everything very well. I can't see why he wouldn't make it in.
Faulk might go before Martin because Faulk is the mold of the current era of a receiving back. Curtis is just one of the best of the classic workhorse backs to ever play the game. While I'd love for him to go in on the first ballot, I feel that it would be a toss-up.
He's one of those cases where if he goes in on the first ballot nobody will be surprised and if he doesn't nobody will be surprised. We just need to wait and see how it goes.
Leading the league in rushing doesn't make you the best RB in football. There isn't a GM in the league who would have rather had Martin than Alexander, Barber, or Tomlinson. He was never the best RB in the league.
I just looked up all the first ballot guys who played at least one season in 1980 or later (just want to look at guys everyone here should know). Here it is: Troy Aikman Marcus Allen Mel Blount Terry Bradshaw Earl Campbell Eric Dickerson Tony Dorsett John Elway Dan Fouts Joe Greene Jack Ham Jack Hannah Franco Harris Ken Houston Jim Kelly Jim Langer Steve Largent Ronnie Lott Dan Marino Bruce Matthews Joe Montana Warren Moon Anthony Munoz Walter Payton Barry Sanders Mike Singletary Jackie Slater Jan Stenerud Lawrence Taylor Gene Upshaw Randy White Reggie White Steve Young I'm sorry, but there is no way Curtis Martin belongs on that list. Those guys are the best of the best.
DBJ, while I see the point you are attempting to make, you are dead wrong. Curtis will go in first ballot. If he does miss in his first year, it won't be by much, and he'll go in the next year. You, and several others around here, have always underestimated Curtis. The HoF voters won't make that mistake.
He might but he is not in the class of the automatics, he is in the next group. He is much more a Harry Carson than an LT.
